Beyond Construction: Five arguments for the role and value of critique in learning science

References

• Alexander, R. (2005). Towards dialogic teaching. New York: Dialogos.
   Google Scholar
• Allchin, D. (2012). Teaching the nature of science through scientific errors. Science Education, 96(5), 904–926. doi: 10.1002/sce.21019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alverman, D. E., & Hague, S. A. (1989). Comprehension of counterintuitive science text: Effects of prior knowledge and text structure. Journal of Educational Research, 82(4), 197–202. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1989.10885893
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.260
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894–897. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.18.6.894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. Handbook of Reading Research, 1, 255–291.
   Google Scholar
• Argyle, M., Henderson, M., & Furnham, A. (1985). The rules of social relationships. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24(2), 125–139. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1985.tb00671.x
   Google Scholar
• Au, W. (2007). High stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267. doi: 10.3102/0013189X07306523
   Google Scholar
• von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J. F., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to Learn and learning to argue: Case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(1), 101–131. doi: 10.1002/tea.20213
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bachelard, G. (1968). The philosophy of no. New York: Orion Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bacon, F. (1620/1939). Novum organum. In E. A. Burtt (Ed.), The English philosophers: From Bacon to Mill (pp. 24–123). New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist & C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 83–104). Wesport, CT: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385–414. doi: 10.1086/461835
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berlyne, D. E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 180–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarifying and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 272–281. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.272
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Chi, M. (2009). Active-Constructive-Interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chi, M., Hutchinson, J., & Robin, A. (1989). How inferences about novel domain-related concepts can be constrained by structured knowledge. Merril-Palmer Quarterly, 35, 27–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. F. (2008). Students’ questions: A potential resource for teaching and learning science. Studies in Science Education, 44(1), 1–39. doi: 10.1080/03057260701828101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin, C., & Osborne, J. F. (2010). Supporting argumentation through students’ questions: Case studies in science classrooms. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 230–284. doi: 10.1080/10508400903530036
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Christodoulou, D. (2014). Minding the knowledge gap: The importance of content in student learning. American Educator 38(1), 27–33.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H. (1974). Semantics and comprehension. In R. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Current trends in linguistics (Vol. 12, pp. 1291–1428). The Hague: Mouton.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, H. H., & Chase, W. G. (1972). On the process of comparing sentences against pictures. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 472–517. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(72)90019-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, D. (1995). Argument is war …  … and war is hell: Philosophy, education and metaphors for argumentation. Informal Logic, 17(2), 177–187.
   Google Scholar
• Cookson, C. (2014). Andrei Linde on the Big Bang and the biggest discovery of all time. Financial Times. Retrieved from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9a306276-bf03-11e3-8683-00144feabdc0.html – axzz38ho6qUv1, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9a306276-bf03-11e3-8683-00144feabdc0.html – axzz38ho6qUv1
   Google Scholar
• Crombie, A. C. (1994). Styles of scientific thinking in the European tradition: The history of argument and explanation especially in the mathematical and biomedical sciences and arts (Vol. 1). London: Duckworth.
   Google Scholar
• Cromer, A. (1993). Uncommon sense: The heretical nature of science. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Hermanson, K. (1995). Intrinsic motivation in museums: Why does one want to learn? In J. H. Falk & L. D. Dierking (Eds.), Public institutions for personal learning: Establishing a research agenda (pp. 67–77). Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
   Google Scholar
• Dalton, S. S., & Tharp, R. G. (2002). Standards for pedagogy: Research, theory and practice. Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education, pp. 181–194.
   Google Scholar
• Davies, F., & Greene, T. (1984). Reading for learning in the sciences. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd.
   Google Scholar
• Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28(3), 335–356. doi: 10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00039-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1979). Individual and collective conflicts of centrations in cognitive development. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(1), 105–108. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420090110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dweck, C. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development (essays in social psychology). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. London: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition & Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI2004_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erickson, F. (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and social participation structure in lessons. In L. Wilkinson (Ed.), Communication in the classroom (pp. 153–181). London: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, J. S. B. (1989). Bias in human reasoning: Causes and consequences. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fodor, J. D., Fodor, J. A., & Garrett, M. F. (1975). The psychological unreality of semantic representations. Linguistic Inquiry, VI(4), 515–531.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. J. (2008). Disciplinary authority and accountability in scientific practice and learning. Science Education, 92(3), 404–423. doi: 10.1002/sce.20263
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glachan, M., & Light, P. (1982). Peer interaction and learning: Can two wrongs make a right. Brighton: Harvester Press.
   Google Scholar
• Guzetti, B. J., Synder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education to promote conceptual change in science. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–161. doi: 10.2307/747886
   Google Scholar
• Hacking, I. (1992). ‘Style’ for historians and philosophers. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 23(1), 1–20. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(92)90024-Z
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. doi: 10.1119/1.18809
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hannaway, J., & Hamilton, L. (2008). Performance-based accountability policies: Implications for school and classroom practices. Washington, DC: Urban Institute and RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1991). Sharing cognition through collective comprehension activity. In L. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 331–348). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Howe, C. J., Tolmie, A., & Rodgers, C. (1992). The acquisition of conceptual knowledge in science by primary school children: Group interaction and the understanding of motion down an inclined plane. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 113–130. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-835X.1992.tb00566.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howson, C., & Urbach, P. (2006). Scientific reasoning: A Bayesian approach (3rd ed.). Chicago: Open Court.
   Google Scholar
• Hynd, C. R. (2001). Refutational texts and the change process. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(7), 699–714. doi: 10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00010-1
   Google Scholar
• Jenner, J. (2008). Focus on earth science. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24(4), 330–358. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.0993
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184. doi: 10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204. doi: 10.1080/03057260903142285
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarising and notetaking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 303–323. doi: 10.3102/00028312029002303
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozen, A. A., Murray, R. K., & Windell, I. (2006). Increasing all students’ chance to achieve using and adapting anticipation guides with middle school learners. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41(4), 195–200. doi: 10.1177/10534512060410040101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W. (1990). Lay epistemic theory in social-cognitive psychology. Psychological Inquiry, 1(3), 181–197. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0103_1
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D., Wang, Y., & Li, H. (2011). Why argue? Developing understanding of the purposes and values of argumentive discourse. Discourse Processes, 48, 26–49. doi: 10.1080/01638531003653344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunter, M., Baumert, J., Blum, W., Klusmann, U., Krauss, S., & Neubrand, M. (Eds.). (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV project. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408. doi: 10.1080/0950069032000052117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leitão, S. (2000). The potential of argument in knowledge building. Human Development, 43, 332–360. doi: 10.1159/000022695
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. Longman: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16. doi: 10.3102/0013189X029002004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomax, R. G., West, M. M., Harmon, M. C., Viator, K. A., & Madaus, G. F. (1995). The impact of mandated standardized testing on minority students. The Journal of Negro Education, 64(2), 171–185. doi: 10.2307/2967240
   Google Scholar
• Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• MacPherson, A. C., & Osborne, J. F. (2012). There's more to science than recall: An analysis. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Indianapolis.
   Google Scholar
• Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2011). Pipeline persistence: Examining the association of educational experiences with earned degrees in STEM among US students. Science Education, 95(5), 877–907. doi: 10.1002/sce.20441
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maria, K. (1988). Helping fifth graders learn with science text. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Tucson, AZ.
   Google Scholar
• Maria, K., & MacGinitie, W. (1987). Learning from texts that refute the reader's prior knowledge. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 222–238. doi: 10.1080/19388078709557912
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mercer, N., Dawes, L., Wegerif, R., & Sams, C. (2004). Reasoning as a scientist: Ways of helping children to use language to learn science. British Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 359–377. doi: 10.1080/01411920410001689689
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(02), 57–74. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X10000968
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 27, 283–297. doi: 10.1007/s11217-007-9071-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millar, R. (1998). Rhetoric and reality: What practical work in science education is really for. In J. Wellington (Ed.), Practical work in school science: Which way now? (pp. 16–31). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
   Google Scholar
• Netz, R. (1999). The shaping of deduction in Greek mathematics: A study in cognitive history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. F. (1999). The place of argumentation in the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of Science Education, 21(5), 553–576. doi: 10.1080/095006999290570
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175
   Google Scholar
• Norris, S. P. (1997). Intellectual independence for nonscientists and other content-transcendent goals of science education. Science Education, 81(2), 239–258. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199704)81:2<239::AID-SCE7>3.0.CO;2-G
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240. doi: 10.1002/sce.10066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Norris, S. P., & Phillips, L. M. (2008). Reading as inquiry. In R. A. Duschl & R. E. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 233–262). Rotterdam: Sense.
   Google Scholar
• Nystrand, M., Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendegarst, C. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oakeshott, M. (1933). Experience and its modes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (1994). A rational analysis of the selection task as optimal data selection. Psychological Review, 101, 608–631. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.101.4.608
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oaksford, M., & Chater, N. (2007). Bayesian rationality: The probalistic approach to human reasoning. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ogborn, J., Kress, G., Martins, I., & McGillicuddy, K. (1996). Explaining science in the classroom. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning to do and learning to understand? A lesson and a challenge for cognitive modelling. In P. Reimann & H. Spada (Eds.), Learning in humans and machines (pp. 37–62). Oxford: Elsevier.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F. (2001). Promoting argument in the science classroom: A rhetorical perspective. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(3), 271–290. doi: 10.1080/14926150109556470
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F. (2011). Science teaching methods: A rationale for practices. School Science Review, 93(343), 93–103.
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., & Collins, S. (2001). Pupils’ views of the role and value of the science curriculum: A focus-group study. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 441–467. doi: 10.1080/09500690010006518
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborne, J. F., Henderson, B., MacPherson, A., & Szu, E. (2013). Validating and assessing a new progress map for student argumentation in science. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
   Google Scholar
• Pearson, D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in the service of the other. Science, 328, 459–463. doi: 10.1126/science.1182595
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkins, D. N. (1985). Postprimary education has little impact on informal reasoning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(5), 562–571. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.77.5.562
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child. London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner.
   Google Scholar
• Pontecorvo, C., & Girardet, H. (1993). Arguing and reasoning in understanding historical topics. Cognition and Instruction, 11(3 & 4), 365–395. doi: 10.1080/07370008.1993.9649030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gerzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227. doi: 10.1002/sce.3730660207
   Google Scholar
• Quine, W. V. (1951). Main trends in recent philosophy: Two dogmas of empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20–43. doi: 10.2307/2181906
   Google Scholar
• Reddy, M. (1979). The conduit metaphor. In A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 284–324). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Resnick, L., Michaels, S., & O'Connor, C. (2010). How (well-structured) talk builds the mind. In J. Sternberg (Ed.), From genes to context: New discoveries about learning from educational research and their applications (pp. 163–194). New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, Eric M. (1948). Science courses in general education. In E. J. McGrath (Ed.), Science in general Education (pp. 1–22). Dubuque, IA: Wm.C, Brown Co.
   Google Scholar
• Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H. P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L. (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1020–1049. doi: 10.3102/0002831213477680
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwab, J. (1962). The teaching of science as enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right  …  if they argue together! Cognition and Instruction, 18(4), 461–494. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y., Gil, J., & Ilya, M. (2003). Construction of collective and individual knowledge in argumentative activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(2), 219–256. doi: 10.1207/S15327809JLS1202_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high school science lessons. Science Education, 90(4), 605–631. doi: 10.1002/sce.20131
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40–59. doi: 10.17763/haer.78.1.v62444321p602101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siegel, H. (1989). The rationality of science, critical thinking and science education. Synthese, 80(1), 9–41. doi: 10.1007/BF00869946
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. K., Wood, W. B., Adams, W. K., Wieman, C., Knight, J. K., Guild, N., & Su, T. T. (2009). Why peer discussion improves student performance on in-class concept questions. Science, 323(5910), 122–124. doi: 10.1126/science.1165919
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunal, D. W., & Wright, E. (Eds.). (2006). The impact of state and national standards on k-12 science teaching. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Sutton, C. (1995). The scientific model as a form of speech. In G. Welford, J. F. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in Europe (pp. 143–152). London: Falmer Press.
   Google Scholar
• Szu, E., & Osborne, J. F. (2011). Scientific reasoning and argumentation from a Bayesian perspective. In M. S. Khine (Ed.), Perspectives on scientific argumentation (pp. 55–71). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. (2008). Explanatory Coherence. In J. E. Adler & L. J. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning (pp. 471–513). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tillich, P. (2005). The new being. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
   Google Scholar
• Trabasso, T. R., Rollins, H., & Shaughnessy, E. (1971). Storage and verification stages in processing concepts. Cognitive Psychology, 2, 239–289. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(71)90014-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wason, P. C. (1966). Reasoning. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology (pp. 135–151). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Weiman, C. (2014). Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8319–8320. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1407304111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). A study of k-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research.
   Google Scholar
• Wellington, J., & Osborne, J. F. (2001). Language and literacy in science education. Buckingham: Open University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wells, G., & Claxton, G. (Eds.). (2002). Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives on the future of education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Wiliam, D. (2010). What counts as evidence of educational achievement? The role of constructs in the pursuit of equity in assessment. Review of Research in Education, 34, 254–284. doi: 10.3102/0091732X09351544
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolpert, L. (1992). The unnatural nature of science. London: Faber and Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Zohar, A., & Nemet, F. (2002). Fostering students’ knowledge and argumentation skills through dilemmas in human genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(1), 35–62. doi: 10.1002/tea.10008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar